Under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, a female Hindu becomes the full owner of any property possessed by her, whether acquired before or after the commencement of the Act, and such property is not held by her as a limited owner.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. When the hearing of the appeal had been concluded on 24-9-1959, I had informed the parties that the appeal is dismissed with costs, and that the reasons would follow. I now proceed to give my reasons.

2. This appeal by the plaintiffs is from the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mongbyr, dismissing their suit and refusing the declarations sought by them.

3. It is necessary first to give the pedigree of the family of Shambhu Singh the admitted common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants 6 to 8. It is below:

SAMBHU SINGH

|

------------------------------------------

| | |

Raj Kumar Bhagwat (dead) Ram Lakhan

(dead) | (dead)

| Plaintiffs 1 to 3. |

| |

| |

Sheonandan (dead) 4 Sons of whom only

Widow- Mayawati Kishori Saran

Defendant 6. Defendant No. 7

is alive.

4. Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of defendant No 8. Defendant No. 8, Ram Peyrai Devi, according to the plaintiffs, is the daughter of Ramlakhan father of defendant No. 7, and, according to the defendants, daughter of Raj Kumar, father of Sheonandan, Defendant No. 4, the vendee under Exhibit 2, is a stranger to the family.

5. The main dispute between the parties, therefore was, whether defendant 8 was the sister of Sheonandan, or of Kishori, defendant No. 7?

6. The dispute in the suit, out of which the present appeal arises was with respect to toe lands owned and possessed by Sheonaudan, husband of defendant No. 6 which she admittedly inherited after her husbands death.

7. Plaintiffs are the admitted agnates of Sheonandan, being the sons of Bhagwat, the second son of Shambhu and brother of Rajkumar. It is undisputed that all the three sons -- Rajkumar, Bhagwat and Ramlaklian -- of Shambhu were separate from before the survey which took place in 1903.

8. The plaintiffs claimed to be the next reversioners of Sheonandan, and, in that capacity they brought the present suit for a declaration that they were the next reversioners of Sheonandan and that the alienations made by his widow, defendant 6, were fraudulent void and not binding on them.

9. The first sale deed (Exhibit A) was executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendants 1 to 3 for a sum of Rs. 500.00 on the 8th November. 1952 in respect of 11 kathas 9 dhurs, which are mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint. The second sale deed (Exhibit 2) was executed on 12-11-1952 in favour of defendant No. 4 for a sum of Rs. 50/-in respect of 1 katha 5 dhurs out of plot No. 374, which are mentioned in Schedule 2 of the plaint.

10. The plaintiffs suit was a mere declaratory suit, in which they asked for two declarations: First that they (plaintiffs), and, defendant No. 7 were the nearest reversioners of Sheonandan husband of defendant No. 6 and, as such, after her death, they were entitled to all his properties mentioned in Schedule 3 of the plaint; and, secondly, that the two sale deeds, Exhibits A and 2, just mentioned, in respect of the lands mentioned in Schedules 1 and 2 of the plaint, were void and not binding on them.

11. The plaintiffs suit was contested by defendants 1 to 3. Defendants 5, 6 and 8 also appeared and filed separate written statements supporting the case of defendants 1st party, that is, defendants 1 to 3. Defendant 6, Mayabati, and defendant 8, Ram Pearey, were also examined on commission on behalf of the defendants and are mentioned as D. W. 1 and D.W. 2 (on commission). Defendant 4 did not appear and contest the suit but he was examined on behalf of the defendants, as D. W. 15. Defendant 7, Kishori Saran, however, neither appeared, n